SDK wrote:Would Pandemic Legacy be good with two people, or should I get a larger group together to try it?

I played through all of it with just two people (myself and my SO) and we had a blast playing it. We usually just played 2 characters apiece so we have more things going on and more abilities to play with.

I played it with four people and really enjoyed myself, but I've heard from plenty of people exactly what pseudo said.

Generally Pandemic is easier with fewer characters, so you could choose to just play one character each. However, in order to experience more aspects of the game, you might have more fun playing two characters each (each one with its own hand of cards etc.).

That's not a bad idea. Thanks. I've been considering buying Legacy for a while now, but never made the leap since I didn't set up a group beforehand. Maybe I'll just see if the wife wants to go for it.

And we *have* done so - our first run-thru was with another couple, for a 4-player game; we then bought a second copy to play thru by ourselves, and have just been waiting for our knowledge to fade sufficiently so that we still have a reasonable amount of surprise about when things happen.

It's really tough to play regular Pandemic after you've played Legacy. We're not even done our Legacy game yet (hard to get everyone together). We're just starting October I think. We've only played 10 games so far with a nice 9-1 record, though even with what we can consider some broken combos of powers/rewards each game is still a nail biter. I'm not sure how tough the game is if you don't optimize well though.

The game balances itself pretty well. I think we ended up playing... 16 or 17 rounds? Every time you lose, you gain two more funding cards which help a ton - delay epidemics and give you useful powers. And I believe there's an "open this if you lose four times in a row" box, too.

Once we move to be close to my husband's family, I think I'll try to convince them to buy a copy of it and play again (maybe with his sister and her fiance). I imagine I'll try to keep silent a lot of the time so as not to spoil things.

Its true I had forgotten about the funding cards since we got to use them like twice. Having Rivals as a relationship makes those cards exceptionally powerful too (along with any cards that you stick equipment on).

I picked up Flash Point a couple months ago. Played it once shortly after that and the game kicked our ass. We chalked it up to being the first time and learning the game.

Broke it out again the other night (with 2 players) and realized I'd done some of the setup wrong. I didn't think it was enough to really make much of a difference, but we sailed through the game that time. Barely any walls damaged. Only one lost victim and that was mostly because we knew we were about to win so we didn't focus as much on trying to get to someone that was isolated.

Then played again last night with 4 and it went excellent. No survivors lost.

Anyhow, I'm definitely a fan of the game. My only real complaing is that the rulebook is not laid out well and is kind of confusing in places, but I think I've got things pretty well figured out now.

There's a pretty good chance I'll pick up some of the expansions. Some of them sound really interesting.

Zohar wrote:We didn't use equipment cards very much until the last few games, but relationship stuff definitely helped a ton.

We didn't actually use equipment cards much, but we abused the Soldier's ability to make Searches easy by recycling equipment cards...

Meanwhile, Vast is pretty good - an asymmetric game where up to five players attempt to fulfill their goal first - the Goblins want to kill the Knight who's hunting the Dragon who just wants to wake up and escape the caverns, while the Cave itself wants to collapse and bury everyone. Oh and the Thief wants to loot the place bare and get out. Each role has its own mechanics and interactions with the other roles.

I join the choir of pandemic legacy fans. I probably won't replay the first season but I'll insta-buy the second.

rmsgrey wrote:Meanwhile, Vast is pretty good - an asymmetric game where up to five players attempt to fulfill their goal first - the Goblins want to kill the Knight who's hunting the Dragon who just wants to wake up and escape the caverns, while the Cave itself wants to collapse and bury everyone. Oh and the Thief wants to loot the place bare and get out. Each role has its own mechanics and interactions with the other roles.

Have you played it? Is it well balanced? It sounds like a very cool game but it's quite expensive here (60-70 euros).

Vast is pretty well balanced, but essentially each player is playing a different game at the same table. The teaching takes a while, and if you want to switch roles for a second game you practically have to teach it all again. Overall I liked it a lot, but it takes some dedication to get into it.

plytho wrote:I join the choir of pandemic legacy fans. I probably won't replay the first season but I'll insta-buy the second.

rmsgrey wrote:Meanwhile, Vast is pretty good - an asymmetric game where up to five players attempt to fulfill their goal first - the Goblins want to kill the Knight who's hunting the Dragon who just wants to wake up and escape the caverns, while the Cave itself wants to collapse and bury everyone. Oh and the Thief wants to loot the place bare and get out. Each role has its own mechanics and interactions with the other roles.

Have you played it? Is it well balanced? It sounds like a very cool game but it's quite expensive here (60-70 euros).

Played once so far - 5 new players and we finished with everyone on the verge of winning, so it seems pretty balanced, though I'm reluctant to draw definite conclusions based on such inexpert play. The knight ended up winning, using their last Encounter to deal the last point of damage to the Dragon, who was only one tile away from the exit and escape. Meanwhile the Knight was down to their last HP, so the Goblins only needed to land one more attack to finish them, and the Cave had only missed winning on their last turn because, of 4 tokens they drew for their turn, none of them was of one of the types that would have let them win (half the tokens would have given them the win). And the Thief had had 5 of the 6 treasures they needed to stash safe for several turns and was just having trouble getting that last one.

General opinion on BGG seems to be that it is, indeed, pretty well balanced, aside from some play groups who report that one role is far too powerful and always wins (they don't agree which role).

Ran through January and February of Pandemic Legacy last night (with four players). It was good! Some interesting changes already, and I'm looking forward to seeing what else the game has in store for us.

Feels too easy though. We had just one outbreak total through both of our games. Does it get harder? I realize it might be difficult to answer this question without resorting to spoilers (which I don't want!), but I'm concerned that our current board state is too tame to make the future scenarios challenging either. Maybe we started out so good that the whole thing won't be a challenge!? That would be disappointing.

Since you started with two wins your funding is 0 right? That means one less turn for each player, which makes it at least a little harder. Some of the coming months are harder than others. There's also the luck of the draw which might influence things. I think we had three or four outbreaks just from the epidemic cards.

Yeah, funding is down to zero now, and we were tight there in one of our two games. I just assumed there would be more carry-over from game to game since so far we haven't had any build-up of negative consequences. Guess I'll just hang on and enjoy the ride then!

No spoilers, but "build-up of negative consequences" is basically the precise theme of the first big reveal, so don't worry, it's coming. A skilled Pandemic group with average luck won't run into much trouble the first game or two.

Zohar wrote:The game gets more challenging, I feel. But funding is a great way to balance it. How many characters are you playing with?

Four. Got a couple friends interested, so we'll be playing over the next few months. Good to hear you think it gets harder.

Xanthir wrote:No spoilers, but "build-up of negative consequences" is basically the precise theme of the first big reveal, so don't worry, it's coming. A skilled Pandemic group with average luck won't run into much trouble the first game or two.

There was a poll a while back on boardgamegeek. As I recall, a lot of people had their first loss in January, and I don't think there was any month where more people first lost in that month than the previous month, but the proportion of people who reached a given month without a loss who then picked up their first loss in that month peaked in April/May, so those months are, in some sense, the hardest.

Has anyone tried playing the Arena of the Planeswalkers MTG game? (Pretty much a remake of heroscape)I thoroughly enjoy the 2 versions that have come out hus far and I'm curious to see if anyone else has taken them out for a spin.

SDK wrote:Ran through January and February of Pandemic Legacy last night (with four players). It was good! Some interesting changes already, and I'm looking forward to seeing what else the game has in store for us.

Feels too easy though. We had just one outbreak total through both of our games. Does it get harder? I realize it might be difficult to answer this question without resorting to spoilers (which I don't want!), but I'm concerned that our current board state is too tame to make the future scenarios challenging either. Maybe we started out so good that the whole thing won't be a challenge!? That would be disappointing.

Without some of the quasi broken combos you can do, I don't really see how some of the later scenarios are beatable. I mean I guess that's the point of the game and all, but we min-maxed pretty hard when we played this and a lot of games were still super dicey. Without min-maxing I can't see how it would have worked at all. That said I guess having funding can definitely help, especially if you abuse those cards with certain relationships.

Example combos (early game available but still putting it in a spoiler)

Spoiler:

Researcher + Scientist with the Co-worker relationship is ridiculously strong at getting things cured. The vast majority of our games used this combo and without it, the base objective of curing 3 diseases seems WAY more difficult. Similarly rivals when you have funding cards is crazy strong letting you chain "One Quiet Night" . Works well with equipment too once it's introduced

I want to try Seafall legacy but at the same time I am wondering if it is worth the money. Has anyone played it before? Based off of reviews I've found online it seems that if it is your first legacy game ever, it is really great, but if you have played the risk and/or pandemic legacys it is quite a let down.

Chen wrote:Example combos (early game available but still putting it in a spoiler)

Spoiler:

Researcher + Scientist with the Co-worker relationship is ridiculously strong at getting things cured. The vast majority of our games used this combo and without it, the base objective of curing 3 diseases seems WAY more difficult. Similarly rivals when you have funding cards is crazy strong letting you chain "One Quiet Night" . Works well with equipment too once it's introduced

That first example combo does require you to have done something fairly specific in your first game:

Spoiler:

If you play both Researcher and Scientist in January, you can't give them a Relationship together in February

heuristically_alone wrote:I want to try Seafall legacy but at the same time I am wondering if it is worth the money. Has anyone played it before? Based off of reviews I've found online it seems that if it is your first legacy game ever, it is really great, but if you have played the risk and/or pandemic legacys it is quite a let down.

I have a friend nearing the end of a playthrough of Seafall. I don't know anything spoilery, because I have a copy and plan on playing at some point, but it sounds like he and his group have really enjoyed it overall. It's pretty ambitious and falls short in some places and there's been some times they've had to consult the internet to figure out how to proceed -- sounds like some clues/hints you get in game for where to go/what to do to continue are sometimes so vague as to be nearly useless and a lot of people need some nudging. But for all that it still sounds like it's a fun game.

Playing through Seafall at the moment (played 5 games.) You will need to consult the internet at times. It is very different from Pandemic legacy, as it is a competitive game, but I still think it plays well. One player was falling behind early, but then made a big comeback in one game. It can be a bit swingy. It does rely on luck a bit (especially if you go heavy explore/raid), but the story is decent enough for a game to get it through. Overall, I can't wait to play the next game of it!

Regarding Pandemic,

Spoiler:

yeah, we made a mistake with relationships, and didn't read the rule that it's only new characters that get them, so we had the OP combo. One Quiet night got abused as well. Still lost the occasional game.

rmsgrey wrote:That first example combo does require you to have done something fairly specific in your first game:

Spoiler:

If you play both Researcher and Scientist in January, you can't give them a Relationship together in February

Spoiler:

This is true, and definitely something a brand new player could run into.However, without co-workers the one who can trade cards (Researcher? Always get those confused) is probably one the weakest stand alone character. People who have played normal Pandemic before probably wouldn't choose both Researcher and Scientist in their first game. Dispatcher, Medic, Scientist and Generalist were what we used.

We got good milage out of Soldier with Rivals and grenades too. Alas he had the paramilitary escort upgrade and only got to use it for a month before he died because of it. We found the paranoid soldier super quick because of the Soldier discarding equipment and using it to help search. We somehow still managed to win that game despite losing a character right at the start and needing to use a generic. It was just super lucky we won though.